Let us start out with a question. When (in a defensive situation) would I prefer a shotgun to a rifle?
I have been thinking about it for a couple days and haven't come up with a situation yet. If I am going to have to fight somebody I would like an AR or an AK. Both have a viable defensive round, especially considering I would be using modern defensive ammunition. They hold a lot of bullets and are self loading.
This got me thinking about the role of shotguns in home defense. They are sort of a weird beast anyway. Everybody pretty much agrees you should have one, myself included, but they are fraught with disinformation and misunderstanding. When we strip away the myths it is easier to talk about them.
First of all we have to deal with "stopping power" and penetration. The prevailing myth is that shotguns will utterly destroy all flesh and bone but won't go through wallpaper, let alone the whole wall. I would say that is half right. At close range buckshot does really nasty things. However in a sort of funny way projectiles that will devastate one type of stuff will do the same to another. Buckshot will go through walls no problem. Interestingly the performance is not that differently from .223 or 7.62x39.
Next comes accuracy and shot spread. Shotguns are not a land mine or a magical death ray. You have to have the thing pointed at someone for them to work. Shot spread varies by load, choke and weapon but at "in house" ranges it is going to be closer to fist than dinner plate or trash can sized. I have heard the rule that buckshot spreads at about an inch a yard but you really need to pattern a gun with the barrel/ choke to be sure. [A smart guy I knew took his new shotgun to the range with a 5 pack of 2 or 3 different types of buckshot to see which worked best. That might be an idea worth putting in your kit bag.]
The next is that shotguns are super easy to use. I won't say that is entirely wrong but using them in a realistic combat situation takes some practice. The real issue is that these folks are using two very different standards. The standard for using a shotgun is that they can load it, chamber a round and shoot a target or a cardboard box 15 feet away. The rifle standard is that you have to be able to field strip it while hanging blindfolded from money bars and engage man sized targets out to 300 meters with iron sights in driving rain and wind. See an issue here? If we narrow the rifle standards to CQB at ranges of 50 meters or less (which greatly decreases the marksmanship factor) it is a whole different discussion.
To be honest I would give the rifle an advantage because it is easier to make fast follow up shots with due to the lower felt recoil and being self loading. If, after a short orientation you handed a dozen random people a shotgun and had them put one shot per target into a few targets at realistic defensive ranges and did the exact same thing with an AR or a Mini 14 or an AK I would bet an 18 year old bottle of Scotch the rifle would win out.
Let us look at it another way. What would you think of a rifle which must be manually reloaded and has a capacity of 5-8 rounds? Why should a shotgun somehow be different?
Now onto rifles. I will talk in generalities about AR and AK pattern rifles and most of it would apply to a Mini 14 or whatever you run. I would call stopping power even as both are quite sufficient. You can't exactly kill people twice or anything. Rifles win hands down in capacity with 3-4 times as much ammo as a standard pump shotgun, also they penetrate soft body armor. While home invasions are relatively rare they are getting more common. This scenario is definitely an ugly one, but an ugly one where rifles shine. Also rifles are useful at much longer ranges. An AK or AR which could defend your living room could hit a man sized target a couple football fields (or much further, I’ve seen 800 meter hits with an M4 and an ACOG) away. Past 50ish meters or maybe a bit more with slugs and iron sights, cursing is more effective than a shotgun.
That does not say shotguns don't have some real strengths.
Cost is a huge plus. New pump shotguns cost somewhere around $300. You can buy gently used Mossberg 500's and Remington 870's for around $200-220 all day long. Seriously shotguns are great because everybody can afford one. If you can't afford a basic pump shotgun with a little bit of planning then I recommend you reexamine your life and finances.
The next biggest plus is versatility. With one weapon you could shoot a turkey in the morning, pheasants at mid day, a deer just before nightfall and have something very comforting in your tent or cabin at night. With a long choked barrel and a short open cylinder you are good to go for a lot. Toss in a rifled one to shoot slugs and that is even more versatility. There isn't (not including oddballs like those single barrel rifle/ shotgun things) another weapon out there that can do that.
Also pump shotguns are good because they have evaded pretty much every anti gun law out there. You can’t have an AK in Cali or Washington DC but you can have a shotgun. Lastly you can't get much more common than 12 gauge. If they sell bullets they have shotgun shells. Also if I had to come into a place and need to mooch ammo a shotgun would be a good gun to have.
Now before somebody bites my head off just because something else is better doesn't mean shotguns aren't an acceptable tool. To the question are shotguns, in a standard over the counter configuration sufficient for home defense I would say yes. To be honest if you can’t handle a problem in the house with a tube full of buckshot you probably can’t handle it anyway. That however doesn’t mean I don’t like to put the odds in my favor as much as I can.
I own both and you probably should too.
Showing posts with label mini 14. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mini 14. Show all posts
Sunday, December 25, 2011
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
More AK Discussion: Accuracy Revisited and Other Rifles
In response to my recent post on AK's (and Mini's) AZRedhawk44 said: I stewed on this over the weekend subconsciously, and it leaped to the forefront of my mind while I was at a High Power match (I shoot an M14 so I don't have any skin in the AK/Mini conflict either way).
One of Ryan's very valid points was the legitimacy of shooting someone more than 100 yards away. At first, I accepted that premise.
At the match, however, an idea jumped out at me. "Hits" aren't necessarily all good. A 200 yard shot with an AK that tags a leg, arm hip or shoulder might still leave someone functional enough to return fire at me. Yes, it's a hit. But despite the fact that I tried damned hard to make that shot count as best as I could... the platform and cartridge dynamics allowed that bullet to drift 8 to 12 inches more off target than a different platform.
No, I don't want to drag a platform war onto your site. I like FALs, FNARs, AR-10's, AR-15's, DaeWoos, Galils, M1's and M14/M1A's. I like lots of gun platforms. I even like the Mini and AK for what they can do.
The price difference between a self-built AR and a higher end AK or a new Mini just isn't that far, and the AR will (typically) put the lead in the center of the target better.
I just think if you're gonna aim at something and squeeze the trigger, the best possible outcome is for the bullet to impact _exactly_ where you intended to hit.
TOR Here: Thanks for taking the time to ponder this question and then write a reply. Personally from informal experience I believe that the AK platform, given a servicable weapon, is quite capable of hitting dinner plates at 100 meters and a torso sized target at 200 or maybe more. There is certainly a range where the weapons inherant accuracy limitations start pulling shots out of the vital torso and into flesh wounds and appendages.
I don't think anyone could disagree with your statement that "if you're gonna aim at something and squeeze the trigger, the best possible outcome is for the bullet to impact _exactly_ where you intended to hit."
I think there are a few universally desirable characteristics of a rifle:
Reliability- It should go bang every single time you pull the trigger, no matter what. Seeing as firearms are mechanical and even the best mechanical things fail now and then we should seek the lowest failure rate available.
Ruggedness- You want a rifle that can take a beating. Most of us generally take good care of our rifles. However we still definitely want them to work if they happen to be banged around, dropped, not get cleaned as often as they should or get exposed to the elements.
Adaptability- The ability to change a rifles ergonomics, fit, and sights to your preferences and needs. The ability to employ useful accessories.
Commonality- There should be wide access to magazines, spare parts, accessories and such.
Affordability- Outside of gamers and fanboys in forums (there are some good folks there too) the rest of us live in the real world. In the real world instead of theorizing about what the best possible maker for every single component in the world we have to live in a budget. Be it tiny, modest or pretty decent we all have budgets. We need to consider the cost of magazines, optics, ammunition, useful accessories and other ancillary equipment.
Capacity- More bullets and fewer reloads are better than less bullets and more reloads.
Lastly since you already mentioned it accuracy- A rifle that can't hit stuff you shoot at isn't very useful.
It would be great to have a rifle that is devastatingly accurate out to great distances, holds a lot of bullets and reloads quickly, is utterly reliable and rugged under all sorts of adverse conditions, has great adaptability and parts/ ammo/ mags which are widely available. It would also be great if this rifle and its ancillary equipment were so cheap that an average working class guy could get a few rifles, a big box of magazines and enough ammo to fight a moderately intense guerilla campaign.
Ever heard the building analogy that you can have a job be done fast, cheap and right but you only get to pick two? So it could be fast and right but not cheap. Or fast and cheap but not right. It could also be cheap and right but not fast.
Have you ever played the kind of video game where you get to build your own boxer? You get a certain amount of points to divide among different categories (I remember strength, foot speed, quickness, conditioning and toughness or something like that)? If you put all of your points into quickness you could punch really fast but it wouldn't do much and you were really easy to knock out. Put all your points into strength and your boxer will knock people out, when he can hit them. Anyway you get the idea.
My observation is that some foolish and inexperienced people buy a rifle because they saw it in a movie or know a certain group or unit uses it. However smart and experienced people choose a weapon based upon the best balance of the above desirable characteristics prioritized by their own unique scenario with the limiting factor of affordability. Affordability is a limiting factor because in order to have a rifle you have to be able to buy it.
We also need to consider the cost of multiple weapons. After all if things are so screwed that you need a rifle wouldn't it be a good idea for your spouse to have one also? What about your 15 year old child? Sure the idea of arming them is scary in a lot of ways. However if Rorke's Drift is playing out in your neighborhood then the kid needs a damn rifle. Also remember that two is one and one is none.
Price point is an interesting discussion. I think it is important to compare as equitably as possible. For example comparing a bare bones generic AR some yahoo put together in his basement to an AK that comes out of a highly prestigious custom shop is gaming the scenario a bit. Comparing chevy to chevy and BMW to BMW makes more sense. The difference in price between say a WASR-10 at about $550 and an Olympic or Stag AR at say $750 isn't that much. Mags are about a wash. AK's do however have a real cost edge in terms of ammunition. My observation, and YMMV, is that AR's don't really like steel cased ammo. AK's on the other hand will eat anything. Brass cased .223 costs about twice as much as steel cased 7.62x39. So $200 (I didn't check prices today so please don't nit pick) will get you about a half case of .223 or a full case of 7.62x39.
If you look at say a mid range AR with 10 mags, a case of ammo and a few spare parts/ accessories vs a mid range AK with 10 mags, a case of ammo and a few spare parts/ accessories the actual cost is different. Make it two or three cases of ammo and the cost difference is really significant.
As I mentioned peoples own unique scenario is a big factor here. Do they live in the city or out in the country. On the wide open western plains or the primordial woods of the deep south. Do they have a good budget or is money really tight? How important are accessories and their availability? Do they plan to also hunt with their defensive rifle? Do they have problems carrying long heavy rifles? What about felt recoil? Is their plan to have a CQB machine to keep by their bed, an all around rifle or a precision marksmenship machine. What kind of worst case scenario does this rifle fit into?
When we are talking about modern fairly common magazine fed semi automatic rifles such as the AK, AR, Mini- 14, M1A, FN-FAL, HK 91 series, etc. I am becoming less and less convinced there are any real absolutes. I don't think it is so much about the right rifle but the right rifle FOR YOU. If cost is a concern and you aren't so worried about long shots an AK could be a great choice. If you really like commonality and adaptability but cost is a factor then maybe an AR is the answer. If you like the power of a .308 but are concerned about the cost of magazines and spare parts then an HK 91 type could be the way to go. If love rifles made of wood and steel, you really want to reach out and touch someone accurately and money isn't a concern then an M1A would be a good choice. A great rifle for one person might be a horrible rifle for another.
Personally I like AR's and AK's. In terms of rifles I grew up on AR's. I have more muscle memory with that platform than any other or any two others combined. I have a lot of experience and comfort when it comes to that platform. I also appreciate that they are easy to use and pretty darn accurate without completely breaking the bank. I got an AK for no particular reason a few years back. For a random spur of the moment (made the decision at a gun store) purchase I couldn't have done better. I am coming to like AK's more and more. They are affordable to purchase, very affordable to equip, utterly reliable and as rugged as they come. Also they are pretty fun to shoot.
I urge you to be realistic about your budget and consider what it will cost to fully (however you define that) equip a rifle. Next think about your own unique scenario. Do plenty of research and fire as many weapons as possible. Seriously reflect on and consider your options for this major purchase and you will end up with a weapon that will serve you well.
One of Ryan's very valid points was the legitimacy of shooting someone more than 100 yards away. At first, I accepted that premise.
At the match, however, an idea jumped out at me. "Hits" aren't necessarily all good. A 200 yard shot with an AK that tags a leg, arm hip or shoulder might still leave someone functional enough to return fire at me. Yes, it's a hit. But despite the fact that I tried damned hard to make that shot count as best as I could... the platform and cartridge dynamics allowed that bullet to drift 8 to 12 inches more off target than a different platform.
No, I don't want to drag a platform war onto your site. I like FALs, FNARs, AR-10's, AR-15's, DaeWoos, Galils, M1's and M14/M1A's. I like lots of gun platforms. I even like the Mini and AK for what they can do.
The price difference between a self-built AR and a higher end AK or a new Mini just isn't that far, and the AR will (typically) put the lead in the center of the target better.
I just think if you're gonna aim at something and squeeze the trigger, the best possible outcome is for the bullet to impact _exactly_ where you intended to hit.
TOR Here: Thanks for taking the time to ponder this question and then write a reply. Personally from informal experience I believe that the AK platform, given a servicable weapon, is quite capable of hitting dinner plates at 100 meters and a torso sized target at 200 or maybe more. There is certainly a range where the weapons inherant accuracy limitations start pulling shots out of the vital torso and into flesh wounds and appendages.
I don't think anyone could disagree with your statement that "if you're gonna aim at something and squeeze the trigger, the best possible outcome is for the bullet to impact _exactly_ where you intended to hit."
I think there are a few universally desirable characteristics of a rifle:
Reliability- It should go bang every single time you pull the trigger, no matter what. Seeing as firearms are mechanical and even the best mechanical things fail now and then we should seek the lowest failure rate available.
Ruggedness- You want a rifle that can take a beating. Most of us generally take good care of our rifles. However we still definitely want them to work if they happen to be banged around, dropped, not get cleaned as often as they should or get exposed to the elements.
Adaptability- The ability to change a rifles ergonomics, fit, and sights to your preferences and needs. The ability to employ useful accessories.
Commonality- There should be wide access to magazines, spare parts, accessories and such.
Affordability- Outside of gamers and fanboys in forums (there are some good folks there too) the rest of us live in the real world. In the real world instead of theorizing about what the best possible maker for every single component in the world we have to live in a budget. Be it tiny, modest or pretty decent we all have budgets. We need to consider the cost of magazines, optics, ammunition, useful accessories and other ancillary equipment.
Capacity- More bullets and fewer reloads are better than less bullets and more reloads.
Lastly since you already mentioned it accuracy- A rifle that can't hit stuff you shoot at isn't very useful.
It would be great to have a rifle that is devastatingly accurate out to great distances, holds a lot of bullets and reloads quickly, is utterly reliable and rugged under all sorts of adverse conditions, has great adaptability and parts/ ammo/ mags which are widely available. It would also be great if this rifle and its ancillary equipment were so cheap that an average working class guy could get a few rifles, a big box of magazines and enough ammo to fight a moderately intense guerilla campaign.
Ever heard the building analogy that you can have a job be done fast, cheap and right but you only get to pick two? So it could be fast and right but not cheap. Or fast and cheap but not right. It could also be cheap and right but not fast.
Have you ever played the kind of video game where you get to build your own boxer? You get a certain amount of points to divide among different categories (I remember strength, foot speed, quickness, conditioning and toughness or something like that)? If you put all of your points into quickness you could punch really fast but it wouldn't do much and you were really easy to knock out. Put all your points into strength and your boxer will knock people out, when he can hit them. Anyway you get the idea.
My observation is that some foolish and inexperienced people buy a rifle because they saw it in a movie or know a certain group or unit uses it. However smart and experienced people choose a weapon based upon the best balance of the above desirable characteristics prioritized by their own unique scenario with the limiting factor of affordability. Affordability is a limiting factor because in order to have a rifle you have to be able to buy it.
We also need to consider the cost of multiple weapons. After all if things are so screwed that you need a rifle wouldn't it be a good idea for your spouse to have one also? What about your 15 year old child? Sure the idea of arming them is scary in a lot of ways. However if Rorke's Drift is playing out in your neighborhood then the kid needs a damn rifle. Also remember that two is one and one is none.
Price point is an interesting discussion. I think it is important to compare as equitably as possible. For example comparing a bare bones generic AR some yahoo put together in his basement to an AK that comes out of a highly prestigious custom shop is gaming the scenario a bit. Comparing chevy to chevy and BMW to BMW makes more sense. The difference in price between say a WASR-10 at about $550 and an Olympic or Stag AR at say $750 isn't that much. Mags are about a wash. AK's do however have a real cost edge in terms of ammunition. My observation, and YMMV, is that AR's don't really like steel cased ammo. AK's on the other hand will eat anything. Brass cased .223 costs about twice as much as steel cased 7.62x39. So $200 (I didn't check prices today so please don't nit pick) will get you about a half case of .223 or a full case of 7.62x39.
If you look at say a mid range AR with 10 mags, a case of ammo and a few spare parts/ accessories vs a mid range AK with 10 mags, a case of ammo and a few spare parts/ accessories the actual cost is different. Make it two or three cases of ammo and the cost difference is really significant.
As I mentioned peoples own unique scenario is a big factor here. Do they live in the city or out in the country. On the wide open western plains or the primordial woods of the deep south. Do they have a good budget or is money really tight? How important are accessories and their availability? Do they plan to also hunt with their defensive rifle? Do they have problems carrying long heavy rifles? What about felt recoil? Is their plan to have a CQB machine to keep by their bed, an all around rifle or a precision marksmenship machine. What kind of worst case scenario does this rifle fit into?
When we are talking about modern fairly common magazine fed semi automatic rifles such as the AK, AR, Mini- 14, M1A, FN-FAL, HK 91 series, etc. I am becoming less and less convinced there are any real absolutes. I don't think it is so much about the right rifle but the right rifle FOR YOU. If cost is a concern and you aren't so worried about long shots an AK could be a great choice. If you really like commonality and adaptability but cost is a factor then maybe an AR is the answer. If you like the power of a .308 but are concerned about the cost of magazines and spare parts then an HK 91 type could be the way to go. If love rifles made of wood and steel, you really want to reach out and touch someone accurately and money isn't a concern then an M1A would be a good choice. A great rifle for one person might be a horrible rifle for another.
Personally I like AR's and AK's. In terms of rifles I grew up on AR's. I have more muscle memory with that platform than any other or any two others combined. I have a lot of experience and comfort when it comes to that platform. I also appreciate that they are easy to use and pretty darn accurate without completely breaking the bank. I got an AK for no particular reason a few years back. For a random spur of the moment (made the decision at a gun store) purchase I couldn't have done better. I am coming to like AK's more and more. They are affordable to purchase, very affordable to equip, utterly reliable and as rugged as they come. Also they are pretty fun to shoot.
I urge you to be realistic about your budget and consider what it will cost to fully (however you define that) equip a rifle. Next think about your own unique scenario. Do plenty of research and fire as many weapons as possible. Seriously reflect on and consider your options for this major purchase and you will end up with a weapon that will serve you well.
Friday, January 7, 2011
AK's and Mini 14's
Suburban Survivalist asked: What range do you feel you can engage with using your AK? I've had a couple (crappy one sold, sweet one stolen), but when my brothers and I considered what carbine to standardize on most of what we read was that the AK isn't very effective past 150-200 yards. Or are you more concerned with having a more powerful round than 5.56?
I picked up a newer model (580 series) Mini-14 late last year and we put it through the paces over Christmas. Practically no difference between scope/irons at 100 yards (making soda cans dance), and decent grouping at 300 yards (scoped). The updated Mini fixed the accuracy issues. But that's just one carbine and we haven't purchased more, yet.
TOR replies: Accuracy with AK's is relative. With AR's and some .308's we can talk about nice small groups which an AK can't make. However when we talk about battlefield accuracy vs man sized targets AK's do fine. My initial assessment (without a dedicated range trip to confirm) is that a servicable AK series rifle is plenty accurate at 200 meters and probably good enough at 300. I sure would not want someone shooting at me from 300 meters with an AK. I've heard their grouping at 400 described as minute of SUV and am inclined to think that is accurate. If one doesn't shoot so well with an AK replacing the relatively crude sights with either better iron sights or an optic will likely improve performance. As for the 7.62x39 cartridge it just happens to be what the common and readily available AK's are chambered in, as well as being a good cartridge and very affordable to stock/ shoot. As a civilian I can use jacketed hollow points as well as heavier match grade ammo which makes caliber matter a lot less than with FMJ's.
The terrain you live in and your worst case scenario dictate how important range is in your plans. However I will offer that in anything less than a highly unlikely mad max zombie apocalypse shooting someone in the dome from multiple football fields away just isn't realistic as it would lead to jail. Imagine being in a court room trying to justify a 1/4 mile shot with a scoped rifle?
YMMV but I like personally like AK's and AR's and don't see a nitche in my collection for a Mini 14.
I picked up a newer model (580 series) Mini-14 late last year and we put it through the paces over Christmas. Practically no difference between scope/irons at 100 yards (making soda cans dance), and decent grouping at 300 yards (scoped). The updated Mini fixed the accuracy issues. But that's just one carbine and we haven't purchased more, yet.
TOR replies: Accuracy with AK's is relative. With AR's and some .308's we can talk about nice small groups which an AK can't make. However when we talk about battlefield accuracy vs man sized targets AK's do fine. My initial assessment (without a dedicated range trip to confirm) is that a servicable AK series rifle is plenty accurate at 200 meters and probably good enough at 300. I sure would not want someone shooting at me from 300 meters with an AK. I've heard their grouping at 400 described as minute of SUV and am inclined to think that is accurate. If one doesn't shoot so well with an AK replacing the relatively crude sights with either better iron sights or an optic will likely improve performance. As for the 7.62x39 cartridge it just happens to be what the common and readily available AK's are chambered in, as well as being a good cartridge and very affordable to stock/ shoot. As a civilian I can use jacketed hollow points as well as heavier match grade ammo which makes caliber matter a lot less than with FMJ's.
The terrain you live in and your worst case scenario dictate how important range is in your plans. However I will offer that in anything less than a highly unlikely mad max zombie apocalypse shooting someone in the dome from multiple football fields away just isn't realistic as it would lead to jail. Imagine being in a court room trying to justify a 1/4 mile shot with a scoped rifle?
YMMV but I like personally like AK's and AR's and don't see a nitche in my collection for a Mini 14.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
The Mini-14.
My recent post on the Mini-14 got a bit of discussion going. I wanted to put some of my thoughts in but it had been a long day and I was tired.
On the accuracy note I think it is sort of under rated. It certainly is not as accurate as anything in the AR platform but a fellow I know hit a crow at 400 meters with a scoped Mini. He is truly an amazing shot but still the rifle is amply capable of fighting accuracy at fighting ranges.
The Mini-14 however is not an AK or an AR and doesn't have the unique qualities of either. That they were not picked up for wide use by anyone but some LEO's and DOC's speaks for itself. They are a fairly low end little .223 caliber rifle. If that is what you want then you will probably be pleased with it.
I personally can not see myself buying one. If someone offered me one at a great deal I might jump but it would have to be real cheap. I turned down a couple of these in the $350-400 range two summers ago and do not regret it one bit.
On the accuracy note I think it is sort of under rated. It certainly is not as accurate as anything in the AR platform but a fellow I know hit a crow at 400 meters with a scoped Mini. He is truly an amazing shot but still the rifle is amply capable of fighting accuracy at fighting ranges.
The Mini-14 however is not an AK or an AR and doesn't have the unique qualities of either. That they were not picked up for wide use by anyone but some LEO's and DOC's speaks for itself. They are a fairly low end little .223 caliber rifle. If that is what you want then you will probably be pleased with it.
I personally can not see myself buying one. If someone offered me one at a great deal I might jump but it would have to be real cheap. I turned down a couple of these in the $350-400 range two summers ago and do not regret it one bit.
Friday, October 2, 2009
MINI-14: What It Is, And What It Is Not
Tom Cornelius - Suarez International Staff
If you read the rifle section on Warrior Talk, you notice that there is a pretty steady flow of questions concerning the Mini-14's usefulness and capabilities as a defensive or fighting rifle. There are close to a million Mini-14 rifles out there and my guess is they are selling pretty well as of late.
What it is.
The Ruger Mini-14 was first produced in the mid-70's with a blued finish, wood stock, and course peep sights. They have always been light, handy rifles that are easy to carry and shoot. Think scaled-down M-14 at 6lbs. You can find these rifles in gun safes, pickup trucks, the corner of a ranch workshop and in a person's home as a fighting rifle. A lot
has been said about the mini -14 being inaccurate or unreliable...I think these notions need to be put to rest.
The Mini-14 is not and will never be as accurate as a tier one AR-15 at longer ranges. However, when used at the distances were most fights take place accuracy is just fine. Think "minute of man" not "minute of angle." Almost all reliability issues with the Mini-14 can be traced to after market magazines. If you stick with Ruger factory 20-30rd magazines your Mini-14 is gonna run. Another feature these rifles have is very little sensitivity concerning what ammunition they are fed. I have shot everything from 40 grain soft points to 69 grain match , and plenty of steel cased ammo through a 580 Series rifle without a hitch.
The current generation of Mini-14 rifles are designated 580 Series. The differences from the Mini's of the past are: Factory flash hiders on rifles available to civilians, thicker barrels, front sights that are similar to M-14 front sights, rear sights that similar to the "ghost ring " concept and an ejector that is fixed. There are also some factory Mini-14's that can be had with a pistol grip and folding buttstock.
Attributes: Light
Reasonably reliable
Accurate enough for fighting
Not ammunition sensitive
BUT...
The Mini 14 does not have.
The ruggedness of an AK
The reliability of an AK
The availability of uncountable sources for magazines + spare parts
Most do not have a rugged pistol grip stock(firearms with a pistol grip are superior in a CQB fight.)
So Here's The Deal
Get an AK... But if that's not going to happen for whatever reason and you have a Mini-14, try this.
1. Use factory 20-30 round magazines.
2. Get a sling on your Mini (I like the MASH hook style from O.S.T.)
3 Have a method for keeping extra magazines with you. ( A rifle fighting bag is probably the best thing you could have for this duty)
4. Get yourself enrolled in a Suarez Fighting Rifle Skills Class. (To get the best results from your equipment and yourself, you must receive training.)
If you read the rifle section on Warrior Talk, you notice that there is a pretty steady flow of questions concerning the Mini-14's usefulness and capabilities as a defensive or fighting rifle. There are close to a million Mini-14 rifles out there and my guess is they are selling pretty well as of late.
What it is.
The Ruger Mini-14 was first produced in the mid-70's with a blued finish, wood stock, and course peep sights. They have always been light, handy rifles that are easy to carry and shoot. Think scaled-down M-14 at 6lbs. You can find these rifles in gun safes, pickup trucks, the corner of a ranch workshop and in a person's home as a fighting rifle. A lot
has been said about the mini -14 being inaccurate or unreliable...I think these notions need to be put to rest.
The Mini-14 is not and will never be as accurate as a tier one AR-15 at longer ranges. However, when used at the distances were most fights take place accuracy is just fine. Think "minute of man" not "minute of angle." Almost all reliability issues with the Mini-14 can be traced to after market magazines. If you stick with Ruger factory 20-30rd magazines your Mini-14 is gonna run. Another feature these rifles have is very little sensitivity concerning what ammunition they are fed. I have shot everything from 40 grain soft points to 69 grain match , and plenty of steel cased ammo through a 580 Series rifle without a hitch.
The current generation of Mini-14 rifles are designated 580 Series. The differences from the Mini's of the past are: Factory flash hiders on rifles available to civilians, thicker barrels, front sights that are similar to M-14 front sights, rear sights that similar to the "ghost ring " concept and an ejector that is fixed. There are also some factory Mini-14's that can be had with a pistol grip and folding buttstock.
Attributes: Light
Reasonably reliable
Accurate enough for fighting
Not ammunition sensitive
BUT...
The Mini 14 does not have.
The ruggedness of an AK
The reliability of an AK
The availability of uncountable sources for magazines + spare parts
Most do not have a rugged pistol grip stock(firearms with a pistol grip are superior in a CQB fight.)
So Here's The Deal
Get an AK... But if that's not going to happen for whatever reason and you have a Mini-14, try this.
1. Use factory 20-30 round magazines.
2. Get a sling on your Mini (I like the MASH hook style from O.S.T.)
3 Have a method for keeping extra magazines with you. ( A rifle fighting bag is probably the best thing you could have for this duty)
4. Get yourself enrolled in a Suarez Fighting Rifle Skills Class. (To get the best results from your equipment and yourself, you must receive training.)
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Getting Armed
Over an evening around the fireplace somehow our family discussion turned to guns. My (absolutely not at all evil) Stepmom is totally against guns. She has never handled one and intends to keep it that way. However unlike the gun grabbing totalitarians she sees no reason other people should be prevented from owning them. The rest of my family are armed.
My Grandmother was raised by Montana ranch folks and owns 3 guns.
Almost Brother In Law owns a Glock 19 and talked of getting a shotgun with his tax return. He spoke of getting a pistol grip Mossberg 500. Mentioned that having owned both the Mossberg 500 and the Remington 870 I prefer the Remington. Its fit and finish seem to be better and the gun is a lot more smooth of action. Just about every police department seems to use them which may or may not mean much to you. I did specifically caution him about the pistol grip shotgun. Aside from being difficult for the small or weak of hand/ arm to handle in recoil they are very difficult to shoot well. Long guns are inherantly easy to shoot well. Assuming ones stance doesn't suck 2/3rds of aiming a shotgun (and you do need to AIM it) is done by orrienting your body to the target. Pistol grip shotguns are far more difficult to hit anything with. Regardless of the choice of Mossberg or Remington (functionally equivalent is probably a fair term) I urged him to get an 18.5-20 barreled shotgun with a full stock. He also mentioned wanting to get a Mini-14 somewhere down the line. He shot a relatives in Tennessee and liked it a lot.
My youngest sister mentioned that she is going to get a pistol soon. She regularly leaves work late at night and would like to have the option of carrying. I gave her some specific advice and we are going to talk more about it as she gets closer to making a purchase.
My Grandmother was raised by Montana ranch folks and owns 3 guns.
Almost Brother In Law owns a Glock 19 and talked of getting a shotgun with his tax return. He spoke of getting a pistol grip Mossberg 500. Mentioned that having owned both the Mossberg 500 and the Remington 870 I prefer the Remington. Its fit and finish seem to be better and the gun is a lot more smooth of action. Just about every police department seems to use them which may or may not mean much to you. I did specifically caution him about the pistol grip shotgun. Aside from being difficult for the small or weak of hand/ arm to handle in recoil they are very difficult to shoot well. Long guns are inherantly easy to shoot well. Assuming ones stance doesn't suck 2/3rds of aiming a shotgun (and you do need to AIM it) is done by orrienting your body to the target. Pistol grip shotguns are far more difficult to hit anything with. Regardless of the choice of Mossberg or Remington (functionally equivalent is probably a fair term) I urged him to get an 18.5-20 barreled shotgun with a full stock. He also mentioned wanting to get a Mini-14 somewhere down the line. He shot a relatives in Tennessee and liked it a lot.
My youngest sister mentioned that she is going to get a pistol soon. She regularly leaves work late at night and would like to have the option of carrying. I gave her some specific advice and we are going to talk more about it as she gets closer to making a purchase.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Reply To Somebodies Comment
I like approving comments so I can see what people put up. More about knowing what is going on and being able to reply to that comment on last Tuesdays post then controlling content. Anyway a fellow wrote a comment on guns.
He specifically decided he should not own more than 5 guns. He currently has 4:
a bolt action .270
a ruger mini 14 .223
mossberg partner 12 gauge
and some sort of a 9x18 soviet bloc piece
He wondered what my thoughts were on his collection. In terms of individual guns I can find little to argue about. Mossbergs and Mini's are pretty darn common and well liked. The .270 isn't as common as a 30.06 or a .308 but it passes the country store test so I can't say much. As for the pistol I would stock PLENTY (3+ cases) of ammo because unless I miss my guess you may be able to pick it up at a well stocked store in the big city but other than that it is mail order.
As for what you should get for the fifth gun I can observe that you do not own a .22. Maybe you don't like plinking and choose to practice with centerfire weapons, I am not sure. In any case you mentioned maybe getting a .44 magnum. Can't say anything bad about them in terms of power and such. My advice is that unless you life in Grizzly country go with a .357. The odds of finding .357 magnum ammo are far better as everyone and their mom owns a .38 or a .357mag. Since the pistol you have now is definitely an odd ball getting something very common could be wise.
He specifically decided he should not own more than 5 guns. He currently has 4:
a bolt action .270
a ruger mini 14 .223
mossberg partner 12 gauge
and some sort of a 9x18 soviet bloc piece
He wondered what my thoughts were on his collection. In terms of individual guns I can find little to argue about. Mossbergs and Mini's are pretty darn common and well liked. The .270 isn't as common as a 30.06 or a .308 but it passes the country store test so I can't say much. As for the pistol I would stock PLENTY (3+ cases) of ammo because unless I miss my guess you may be able to pick it up at a well stocked store in the big city but other than that it is mail order.
As for what you should get for the fifth gun I can observe that you do not own a .22. Maybe you don't like plinking and choose to practice with centerfire weapons, I am not sure. In any case you mentioned maybe getting a .44 magnum. Can't say anything bad about them in terms of power and such. My advice is that unless you life in Grizzly country go with a .357. The odds of finding .357 magnum ammo are far better as everyone and their mom owns a .38 or a .357mag. Since the pistol you have now is definitely an odd ball getting something very common could be wise.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
U.S Made M-193
Aimsurplus has it or $379 a case. Ammotogo has it for $339. See who will be the cheapest with shipping and make an order if you need .223. These prices seem pretty good to me. I would get some but other stuff is taking priority and I am tapped out for awhile from yesterdays Glock purchase.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Colombine Lessons Learned, Lessons Lost
Massad Ayoob wrote a great article on what we learned, did and failed to do in the fallout of the Columbine Massacre. I know my sleepy little mountain college really got concerned about security after Virginia Tech. Between the sheriffs, university cops and city police there were definitely multiple agencies in play. Their SOP was that the first officer on the scene goes in, period. Most active shooter situation could be dealt with by a single cop applying a properly placed hollow point round to the asshats face. I firmly believe this is a standard which should be emulated by all agencies.
While the militarisation of law enforcement agencies is disturbing to me (particularly SWAT teams) I concur with the author that the spread of patrol carbines (almost universally AR-15's and occasional Mini 14's) to beat cops is a good thing.
From my limited time in a classroom I firmly believe properly trained and certified teachers should not be prevented (note that I said that instead of allowed) from carrying a concealed weapon to protect their students. One teacher finding and shooting the asshat (active shooter) in the face would save a whole lot of lives, especially in rural areas where response time is going to be slower.
While the militarisation of law enforcement agencies is disturbing to me (particularly SWAT teams) I concur with the author that the spread of patrol carbines (almost universally AR-15's and occasional Mini 14's) to beat cops is a good thing.
From my limited time in a classroom I firmly believe properly trained and certified teachers should not be prevented (note that I said that instead of allowed) from carrying a concealed weapon to protect their students. One teacher finding and shooting the asshat (active shooter) in the face would save a whole lot of lives, especially in rural areas where response time is going to be slower.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Gun Accessories
I ended up at the apartment of some of my co workers this afternoon. We had some work to do and since 3 of them live in the same place and the other in the complex me coming there was a non decision. One of the guys brought out his new toy to show us. He has a tricked out Mini- 14. It currently has a folding paratrooper stock on it with a vertical grip in front and is planning to get some sort of a high end optic (CCO or something) in the near future.
Now don't get me wrong the Mini 14 is (with going over the ground we have already covered) a decent gun. However if you want to spend a couple hundred more bucks you get an AR not accessories for the Mini 14.
[Edited to add: It became clear with the first comment that I needed to clarify something. The difference between essential and nonessential accessories. You need slings, holsters, cleaning gear, maybe a scope (with rings, etc), a good supply of mags and of course plenty of ammo. You do not need tac lights, night sights, vertical grips, bipods, lasers, tactical urban optics and all kinds of other stuff. Basically if you can have the firearm live a normal working life without something it is not necessary.]
I like some unnecessary accessories: Night sights on a pistol or a light on a shotgun are good things. Some kind of a nice optic on a rifle is great also.
I guess my point is that if the cost of the unnecessary accessories is approaching the cost of the gun then you are probably approaching Mall Ninja levels of ridiculousness.
I do think the one exception (to the accessory to gun price ratio) is bolt action long distance rifles. The difference between a couple hundred yard gun and a several hundred yard gun (aside from the shooter:) is generally the optic. In this you definitely get what you pay for.
Also tonight's homework took time and thinking so I needed something to write.
Now don't get me wrong the Mini 14 is (with going over the ground we have already covered) a decent gun. However if you want to spend a couple hundred more bucks you get an AR not accessories for the Mini 14.
[Edited to add: It became clear with the first comment that I needed to clarify something. The difference between essential and nonessential accessories. You need slings, holsters, cleaning gear, maybe a scope (with rings, etc), a good supply of mags and of course plenty of ammo. You do not need tac lights, night sights, vertical grips, bipods, lasers, tactical urban optics and all kinds of other stuff. Basically if you can have the firearm live a normal working life without something it is not necessary.]
I like some unnecessary accessories: Night sights on a pistol or a light on a shotgun are good things. Some kind of a nice optic on a rifle is great also.
I guess my point is that if the cost of the unnecessary accessories is approaching the cost of the gun then you are probably approaching Mall Ninja levels of ridiculousness.
I do think the one exception (to the accessory to gun price ratio) is bolt action long distance rifles. The difference between a couple hundred yard gun and a several hundred yard gun (aside from the shooter:) is generally the optic. In this you definitely get what you pay for.
Also tonight's homework took time and thinking so I needed something to write.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Glock 9mm Versatility and the Question Of The Carbine
Hey, Man:
Something cool to consider. I recently bought a Glock 26. I wanted a sub-compact 9mm that was reliably concealable and after much shopping and research decided to spend the extra on the Glock. The added bonuses just keep coming.
1. It takes the G-17 17 round mag and the 36 round mags (TOR, I think you mean 33rd mags). I got the slide on grip extension for the mags, but it works just fine without it. This effectively triples the pool of magazines that I could purchase in a pinch.
2. I have also stumbled on the Kel-Tech Sub 2000 which is a foldable 9mm carbine. Guess what, it takes the Glock mag!
Having a single type of magazine that fits into multiple weapons is an obvious advantage. Also, I had been looking for something that fit in the gap between my 12 gauge and mini-14. The 12 gauge is great, but I keep it set-up for hunting. This makes it unwieldy inside the house due to its length. On the other hand, I can't even imagine discharging a .223 inside the house. I'm afraid the that the hearing loss might even affect my children's children. So, this carbine might fit nicely in the arsenal with some +p ammo, the ability to fight inside, not being forever denied hearing my wife's sweet voice, and its CHEAP to shoot!
Later,
Chad H
TOR SAYS: First of all congrats on getting a Glock. I don't think Glock makes a bad product, just a question of whether the product fills your needs. The Glock 26 is an interesting little gun designed for the niche of .38 snubbies and single stack .380's. I have handled them but never shot one. I have not heard great things about how they shoot. Regardless in the grand compromise of comfort of carry/ concealability vs shootability I think everyone would agree the G26 leans decidedly toward comfort of carry/ concealability.
The compatibility of the Glock series of pistols is something I am just starting to see the full implications of. You can potentially only need to stock one type of mags (for the most part) and cartridges. Also as Commander Zero noted a lot of the spare parts are compatible. If I was starting a pistol collection from scratch I might just get Glock 9mm's.
Kel- Tec is definitely the Rodney Dangerfield of the gun world, they don't get no respect. I've never heard a bad thing about one of their products and IMHO they seem to make very affordable and functional (albeit utilitarian) firearms. Anyone with a hi cap pistol has probably thought of getting one of their Carbines for at least a couple minutes. Check out this review of the Kel- Tech carbines, it seems to lean toward the general consensus on that they are good guns. That they fold in half to store very compactly and can take a variety of mags are probably the strongest points of the Kel-Tec vs other carbines. That brings us to the general question of the carbine.....
I remember hearing in math somewhere (the statistics class I passed with a D-) that you can show what something is by telling what it isn't. A CARBINE IS NOT A RIFLE OR A SHOTGUN. I will say that again for emphasis A CARBINE IS NOT A RIFLE OR A SHOTGUN. As a replacement for either it is a failure.
To snip off a potentially irritating tangent I will use fully proper terminology one time to make sure we are all on the same page. Strictly speaking I am talking about pistol caliber carbines. Start Rant [If anyone starts the ".223 is a carbine and the only 'battle rifle' real men own is a .308" conversation I will reach through their computer and asspunch them. If you want to read some .308 praise get a copy of Boston T. Party's shitty book Molon Labe. I've got one to sell CHEAP.] End rant.
This article talks about this topic in lots of detail. It tends towards lots of facts (gets a bit drug down with ballistics and velocities) and draws few conclusions but if nothing else saves me from having to at least gloss over that stuff. It is worth at least a glimpse.
Carbines have a very narrow performance envelope where they beat shotguns or rifles. For inside the home and at 25 yards or under (distance could be debated but it is in that range) carbines do not beat shotguns, period. [If you have a class III license and 4-5 figures to blow it is a slightly different discussion but IMHO that just narrows the margin of victory for the shotgun. Really if you need to spend 6-10k on a pistol caliber carbine/ submachinegun to compete with a used $200 pump shotgun isn't that a sign?] At farther ranges they do not beat rifles, it is interesting that the issue out to 100 or so meters is more about power then accuracy. For outside of the home if given the option between a pistol and a carbine for a gun fight I would take a carbine but that is a pretty narrowly defined question.
Broadly speaking for a person who wants a little bit more uumph (velocity) than a pistol but can't/ won't purchase a shotgun or rifle a pistol caliber (the same as their pistol) carbine is an OK choice I suppose. Again that question is pretty narrowly defined. See a pattern here? You basically have to stop and think to create a situation where a carbine beats a rifle or a shotgun.
I would be more inclined to steer someone recoil averse and with a low budget to a 20 gauge pump shotgun then a pistol caliber carbine.
Carbines for home defense? You can't discretely answer the door with one and they don't hit like a shotgun does.
For your specific situation. If you genuinely need to grab the Mini 14 to use for defensive purposes in the home (or really outside also) things are pretty much fucked. As for your shotgun being set up for hunting it doesn't take more then 2 minutes to throw a short barrel on a shotgun and set some buckshot near it (or load the tube). Unless you take the shotgun hunting every day (or it is an older model for which barrels are unavailable, etc) that isn't too much to do. You don't need some super fancy "tactical urban defense special operations combat shotgun". Really a short barrel for whatever pump you hunt with and a buttstock shotshell holder of some sort is all you need.
The bottom line is that I don't think carbines are good choice for defense because they don't measure up to shotguns or rifles. Others may disagree and I could have missed some points Start Rant [don't bring up the whole making the perfect hostage rescue carbine shot into the eye of the guy holding someone at knife point thing; you aren't on a SWAT team or an Operator and in any case though that happens in every action movie in real life that situation is rare]End Rant but in any case that is my .02 cents on the topic of carbines.
Something cool to consider. I recently bought a Glock 26. I wanted a sub-compact 9mm that was reliably concealable and after much shopping and research decided to spend the extra on the Glock. The added bonuses just keep coming.
1. It takes the G-17 17 round mag and the 36 round mags (TOR, I think you mean 33rd mags). I got the slide on grip extension for the mags, but it works just fine without it. This effectively triples the pool of magazines that I could purchase in a pinch.
2. I have also stumbled on the Kel-Tech Sub 2000 which is a foldable 9mm carbine. Guess what, it takes the Glock mag!
Having a single type of magazine that fits into multiple weapons is an obvious advantage. Also, I had been looking for something that fit in the gap between my 12 gauge and mini-14. The 12 gauge is great, but I keep it set-up for hunting. This makes it unwieldy inside the house due to its length. On the other hand, I can't even imagine discharging a .223 inside the house. I'm afraid the that the hearing loss might even affect my children's children. So, this carbine might fit nicely in the arsenal with some +p ammo, the ability to fight inside, not being forever denied hearing my wife's sweet voice, and its CHEAP to shoot!
Later,
Chad H
TOR SAYS: First of all congrats on getting a Glock. I don't think Glock makes a bad product, just a question of whether the product fills your needs. The Glock 26 is an interesting little gun designed for the niche of .38 snubbies and single stack .380's. I have handled them but never shot one. I have not heard great things about how they shoot. Regardless in the grand compromise of comfort of carry/ concealability vs shootability I think everyone would agree the G26 leans decidedly toward comfort of carry/ concealability.
The compatibility of the Glock series of pistols is something I am just starting to see the full implications of. You can potentially only need to stock one type of mags (for the most part) and cartridges. Also as Commander Zero noted a lot of the spare parts are compatible. If I was starting a pistol collection from scratch I might just get Glock 9mm's.
Kel- Tec is definitely the Rodney Dangerfield of the gun world, they don't get no respect. I've never heard a bad thing about one of their products and IMHO they seem to make very affordable and functional (albeit utilitarian) firearms. Anyone with a hi cap pistol has probably thought of getting one of their Carbines for at least a couple minutes. Check out this review of the Kel- Tech carbines, it seems to lean toward the general consensus on that they are good guns. That they fold in half to store very compactly and can take a variety of mags are probably the strongest points of the Kel-Tec vs other carbines. That brings us to the general question of the carbine.....
I remember hearing in math somewhere (the statistics class I passed with a D-) that you can show what something is by telling what it isn't. A CARBINE IS NOT A RIFLE OR A SHOTGUN. I will say that again for emphasis A CARBINE IS NOT A RIFLE OR A SHOTGUN. As a replacement for either it is a failure.
To snip off a potentially irritating tangent I will use fully proper terminology one time to make sure we are all on the same page. Strictly speaking I am talking about pistol caliber carbines. Start Rant [If anyone starts the ".223 is a carbine and the only 'battle rifle' real men own is a .308" conversation I will reach through their computer and asspunch them. If you want to read some .308 praise get a copy of Boston T. Party's shitty book Molon Labe. I've got one to sell CHEAP.] End rant.
This article talks about this topic in lots of detail. It tends towards lots of facts (gets a bit drug down with ballistics and velocities) and draws few conclusions but if nothing else saves me from having to at least gloss over that stuff. It is worth at least a glimpse.
Carbines have a very narrow performance envelope where they beat shotguns or rifles. For inside the home and at 25 yards or under (distance could be debated but it is in that range) carbines do not beat shotguns, period. [If you have a class III license and 4-5 figures to blow it is a slightly different discussion but IMHO that just narrows the margin of victory for the shotgun. Really if you need to spend 6-10k on a pistol caliber carbine/ submachinegun to compete with a used $200 pump shotgun isn't that a sign?] At farther ranges they do not beat rifles, it is interesting that the issue out to 100 or so meters is more about power then accuracy. For outside of the home if given the option between a pistol and a carbine for a gun fight I would take a carbine but that is a pretty narrowly defined question.
Broadly speaking for a person who wants a little bit more uumph (velocity) than a pistol but can't/ won't purchase a shotgun or rifle a pistol caliber (the same as their pistol) carbine is an OK choice I suppose. Again that question is pretty narrowly defined. See a pattern here? You basically have to stop and think to create a situation where a carbine beats a rifle or a shotgun.
I would be more inclined to steer someone recoil averse and with a low budget to a 20 gauge pump shotgun then a pistol caliber carbine.
Carbines for home defense? You can't discretely answer the door with one and they don't hit like a shotgun does.
For your specific situation. If you genuinely need to grab the Mini 14 to use for defensive purposes in the home (or really outside also) things are pretty much fucked. As for your shotgun being set up for hunting it doesn't take more then 2 minutes to throw a short barrel on a shotgun and set some buckshot near it (or load the tube). Unless you take the shotgun hunting every day (or it is an older model for which barrels are unavailable, etc) that isn't too much to do. You don't need some super fancy "tactical urban defense special operations combat shotgun". Really a short barrel for whatever pump you hunt with and a buttstock shotshell holder of some sort is all you need.
The bottom line is that I don't think carbines are good choice for defense because they don't measure up to shotguns or rifles. Others may disagree and I could have missed some points Start Rant [don't bring up the whole making the perfect hostage rescue carbine shot into the eye of the guy holding someone at knife point thing; you aren't on a SWAT team or an Operator and in any case though that happens in every action movie in real life that situation is rare]End Rant but in any case that is my .02 cents on the topic of carbines.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Thermold Mini 14/30 Mags- Thanks Steve
Thermold mags New Production for mini 30 and mini 14 mags. Limited supply www.omegamanenterprises.com-steve
Sunday, January 11, 2009
The Mini 14 Series of Rifles
After yesterdays post I spent an hour in the hot tub and then got a good nights sleep. Can't say my thoughts on anything have changed but my mood about the matter has increased. I suppose that most of the things which make up normal life will go on and on regardless of national and world events.
After Steves post I think the Mini 14/30 series of rifles should be discussed. I've known a few people who have owned them and shot a couple of them. Ryan has a Mini 14 as his primary rifle. I am sure once he graduates from law school it will be replaced by some kind of a .308, Ryan seems to favor them.
These rifles shoot pretty well as a generic 100 meter and below plinker. I've heard their barrels are just too light to be accurate and distance. Then again I know a guy who shot a crow at 400 meters on the Grand Coulie Reservour with a Mini 14, he is a truely amazing shot though. I would guess their accuracy is somewhere between the AK series and the AR series. As for overall functionality it is important to keep in mind that this isn't a service weapon. It is used by some police agencies, prisons, etc and for their purposes it is good enough. They seem to be swapping in favor of AR's recently but that is more about them being cool then the Rugers performance.
Magazines for Mini 14 series rifles could be an issue. Since they never saw military service these mags are not available in the kind of quanities that would make them cheap. 20 round factory mags are selling on CDNN for almost 40 bucks! If the aftermarkets work (always a big if) they might be a viable alternative. If you got one of these rifles long ago and were smart enough to squirrel away a couple dozen mags that is a non issue though.
These rifles do almost everything an AR will do at 2/3rds of the price. At urban or woods ranges the accuracy difference would not be an issue. One advantage these rifles have is that they look a bit more politicaly correct. Throw a ten round mag on it (and a couple 30's in your coat pocket) and to most non gun people it looks a lot like any deer rifle.
Up until just recently these were by far the most customizable rifles. Now that M4 mania has came they are down towards number two on that list. You can make a whole bunch of different variations with 300ish dollars and a couple of sportsmens magazines. I have noticed that the price of these rifles has been coming up recently. I am used to seeing used blued Mini 14's in the $300-400 dollar range, I suspect those are fewer and farther between these days.
For the sake of full disclosure I do not own a Mini 14 and unless a deal that is just too good to pass up comes along I never will. I have passed on purchasing several in the $400 range in the past. Passing on these purchases did have a lot to do with me already being invested in the AR platform. I need another .223 rifle mag to stockpile and keep track of like a fish needs a bicycle. Though if I can ever get my hands on a SteyrAug or a SCAR (I think they take AR mags) stocking another mag would be a wonderful problem to have.
If for your situation the limitations of these rifles are outweighed by their strengths then they can be a welcome addition to a family gun collection.
Thoughts?
Experiences?
After Steves post I think the Mini 14/30 series of rifles should be discussed. I've known a few people who have owned them and shot a couple of them. Ryan has a Mini 14 as his primary rifle. I am sure once he graduates from law school it will be replaced by some kind of a .308, Ryan seems to favor them.
These rifles shoot pretty well as a generic 100 meter and below plinker. I've heard their barrels are just too light to be accurate and distance. Then again I know a guy who shot a crow at 400 meters on the Grand Coulie Reservour with a Mini 14, he is a truely amazing shot though. I would guess their accuracy is somewhere between the AK series and the AR series. As for overall functionality it is important to keep in mind that this isn't a service weapon. It is used by some police agencies, prisons, etc and for their purposes it is good enough. They seem to be swapping in favor of AR's recently but that is more about them being cool then the Rugers performance.
Magazines for Mini 14 series rifles could be an issue. Since they never saw military service these mags are not available in the kind of quanities that would make them cheap. 20 round factory mags are selling on CDNN for almost 40 bucks! If the aftermarkets work (always a big if) they might be a viable alternative. If you got one of these rifles long ago and were smart enough to squirrel away a couple dozen mags that is a non issue though.
These rifles do almost everything an AR will do at 2/3rds of the price. At urban or woods ranges the accuracy difference would not be an issue. One advantage these rifles have is that they look a bit more politicaly correct. Throw a ten round mag on it (and a couple 30's in your coat pocket) and to most non gun people it looks a lot like any deer rifle.
Up until just recently these were by far the most customizable rifles. Now that M4 mania has came they are down towards number two on that list. You can make a whole bunch of different variations with 300ish dollars and a couple of sportsmens magazines. I have noticed that the price of these rifles has been coming up recently. I am used to seeing used blued Mini 14's in the $300-400 dollar range, I suspect those are fewer and farther between these days.
For the sake of full disclosure I do not own a Mini 14 and unless a deal that is just too good to pass up comes along I never will. I have passed on purchasing several in the $400 range in the past. Passing on these purchases did have a lot to do with me already being invested in the AR platform. I need another .223 rifle mag to stockpile and keep track of like a fish needs a bicycle. Though if I can ever get my hands on a SteyrAug or a SCAR (I think they take AR mags) stocking another mag would be a wonderful problem to have.
If for your situation the limitations of these rifles are outweighed by their strengths then they can be a welcome addition to a family gun collection.
Thoughts?
Experiences?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
